Re: [Engine-devel] [vdsm] Getting rid of arch@ovirt.org?

On 07/15/2012 03:59 PM, Ayal Baron wrote: > > ----- Original Message ----- >> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- >> Hash: SHA1 >> >> On 07/15/2012 01:53 AM, Ayal Baron wrote: >>> Hi all, >>> >>> Sorry for cross-posting, but in this case I think it's relevant. >>> >>> The original idea was that every time we wish to discuss a new >>> cross-component feature we should do it over arch list. However, it >>> would appear that de-facto usually engine-devel and vdsm-devel are >>> being used (cross posted). Currently engine-devel has 211 >>> subscribers, arch has 160 and vdsm-devel has 128 so from this >>> perspective again, arch seems less relevant. I propose we ditch >>> arch and keep the other 2 mailing lists. I'm not sure whether new >>> cross-component features should be discussed solely on engine-devel >>> or cross-posted (there are probably people who wouldn't care about >>> engine side but would still like to know about such changes). >>> >>> Thoughts? >> - -1 >> >> I don't normally read engine-devel and vdsm-devel, so I hadn't >> noticed >> that discussions I would expect to be on arch@ are not happening >> here. >> I'm probably not the only person in that situation. >> >> If this project were 100% about Engine and VDSM, then I could >> understand your reasoning. But we've already added a few new >> incubating projects, we have subsystem teams such as documentation >> and >> infrastructure, and we all need a single location where we know we >> can >> reach *all* contributors to this project. >> >> If we try to force all that discussion on to engine-devel, not >> everyone would be interested. There is enough on engine-devel that is >> not general interest that it would become noise (as it has for me, so >> I filter it) or people would drop it all together. >> >> Perhaps what we need to do is have the discipline to cross-post *all* >> general interest discussions from the project mailing list back to >> arch@? Enforce the rule that decisions that affect the whole project >> have to be ratified on arch@ instead of whatever project list the >> discussions started on? Strongly suggest that all contributors be on >> arch@ and announce@ as a minimum? > I find that anything that should go on arch would interest anyone on > the devel lists (as it is about new features, design, etc) so I > believe that arch should have at least everyone on engine-devel and > vdsm-devel. > However, right now this is not the case as is evident by number of > subs to each list (e.g. I haven't compared to see if everyone on arch > is on engine). > So imo something needs to be done. > I'm fine with keeping arch, but as you said, that means we need to > enforce it to be *the* list for feature discussions and I'm not > exactly sure how you'd go about doing that. Maybe arch needs renamed to make it clear what if is for? Maybe something simple like ovirt-devel to make it clear it is for generally ovirt development?